Thank you, Chair. I also would like to thank the committee for the opportunity. It's a real privilege to be here.
My remarks will touch on the changes made in Canada's refugee system by two acts, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act and the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, both of which entered into force almost six years ago, in December 2012.
The previous Conservative government introduced these pieces of legislation following the arrival of nearly 600 Tamil asylum seekers aboard two boats in 2009 and 2010.
Protecting the safety and security of Canadians was a major aim for these changes. The other policy goals were to make the refugee system faster and fairer, to clear the refugee backlog at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, and to deport failed refugee claimants as soon as possible.
My remarks draw on field research I and two of my colleagues conducted over the past four years in three provinces—Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec. We wanted to gauge the effectiveness of the new system. Whether it was reaching its policy goals was our primary question.
As a reminder, here are some of the measures introduced in 2012.
First was accelerated timelines. For most claimants, hearings are held no later than 60 days after the refugee claim is referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Second was to have limited procedural rights and limited recourse. For example, most refugee claimants are barred from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment for one year following their final IRB decision.
Third was to create new classes of refugee claimants based on their mode of arrival and their country of origin. Those claimants faced even more reduced timelines, and rights and recourse were reduced further within the new system. Claimants from the so-called designated countries of origin—and there are currently 42 of these, including Mexico—are struggling to reverse the presumption of safety of their country of origin.
“Designated foreign nationals” are another new class of refugee claimants, those who arrive in Canada irregularly, with the help of a smuggler and in a group. Designated foreign nationals, including children aged 16 and 17, are subject to mandatory detention. They are denied basic remedies, such as the right to appeal, and they also face socio-economic deterrents.
According to our findings, these measures have failed to reach their primary goals. Our system is not faster and our system is not more efficient than before. On the contrary, these changes have created a number of negative results.
First of all, they violate the human rights of refugee claimants in Canada. Take the designated foreign national detention provisions: these provisions constitute a violation of our charter rights and also of Canada's international obligations under the 1951 convention and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, among other treaties.
Second, our refugee law has become discriminatory and punitive. It doesn't provide some groups of claimants with adequate procedural protections and adequate recourse. There is therefore a heightened risk of legitimate applications being rejected and individuals being sent back to persecution.
Third, the changes prioritize efficiency and deterrence over fairness.
Fourth, the Canadian refugee landscape is seen as a field of law in flux. The legal uncertainty affects all actors involved, including Immigration and Refugee Board members, legal counsels and service providers.
Lastly, we found a correlation between these new policies and undocumented migration, which is becoming increasingly visible, as shown by the sanctuary city movements. Some of these measures have been quashed by our courts and there is ongoing litigation, but this is a lengthy and costly process.
Parliament should be proactive and first repeal the DFN clause, the designated foreign national clause. Second, refugee claimants should be given enough time, ideally no less than three months, to prepare for the hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Third, differentiated treatment of refugee claimants should be eliminated. Fourth, all procedural rights and recourses should be readily available to all claimants as a matter of the rule of law. Fifth, a better understanding of undocumented migration in Canada is needed, including how our policies sometimes create the illegality of migrants. A case-by-case regularization of undocumented migrants should be considered.
These changes would enable us to establish fairness and efficiency in the system while upholding respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms of all human beings, in accordance with the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Thank you.